Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write nature is already structured. The description adds the auth constraint (organisers only), which annotations do not cover, but it never discloses what re-setting destroys or overwrites for an existing game already populated by players.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the downstream consequence for players. Nothing is padded or restated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation with destructiveHint=true and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the replace-vs-create semantics and what happens to existing attendees or costs when the game is re-set. Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers parameters, so it is minimally viable but leaves real gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all seven parameters (venue, repeat, startsLocal, playerLimit, pitchCost, durationMinutes) are already documented in-schema. The description contributes no timing format, defaults, or money-tracking nuance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb ('Set') and resource ('when and where a squad plays'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like answer_game, join_squad, or create_squad. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls just short of the 5 mark.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Organisers only' tells the agent the caller population permitted to invoke it, which is genuine usage context. However, there is no statement of when to use this versus answer_game/join_squad, nor when re-calling is appropriate, leaving the routing to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.